In re Vanna A., (AC 23579).
Decision Date | 18 May 2004 |
Docket Number | (AC 23579). |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | IN RE VANNA A.[*] |
Dranginis, DiPentima and Hennessy, Js.
David B. Rozwaski, for the appellant (respondent mother).
John B. Ashmeade, assistant attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Susan T. Pearlman, assistant attorney general, for the appellee (petitioner).
The respondent mother appeals from the judgment of the trial court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor child.1 On appeal, the respondent claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) she failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation within the meaning of General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B), (2) there was no ongoing parent-child relationship within the meaning of General Statutes § 17a-112 (j) (3) (D) and (3) termination of her parental rights was in the best interest of the child. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In its memorandum of decision, filed September 9, 2002, the court found the following facts and procedural history. The child, born January 30, 1996, was the subject of a neglect petition filed May 7, 1997, by the commissioner of the department of children and families (commissioner) alleging that the child had sustained injuries in a manner inconsistent with the explanation given by the respondent. The child was found to be neglected. The court entered a disposition of protective supervision that allowed the respondent to have custody and to receive counseling for family preservation. In April, 1998, during the period of protective supervision, neglect petitions were again filed by the commissioner, alleging that the child had suffered inadequately explained physical injuries. The petitions also alleged that she suffered from malnutrition and a lack of medical attention. An order of temporary custody was granted, stemming from the neglect petitions filed in April, 1998. On February 9, 1999, following a judicial pretrial, the parties agreed to, and the court granted, the commissioner's motion to modify the disposition from protective supervision to commitment to the department of children and families (department) and placement in foster care.
On February 11, 1999, just two days later, the respondent filed a motion to revoke the commitment to the department. The respondent's progress with individual counseling was a central issue in the revocation hearing. The motion was denied on the basis of the respondent's failure to acknowledge responsibility for the injuries to the child and to the child's brother.2 The court ordered that the respondent address the issue of her responsibility for the child's injuries in counseling sessions and extended the commitment of the child to July 23, 2000. The court further approved a permanency plan calling for unification of the respondent with her child and set forth the following expectations: The respondent was required to (1) cooperate with the department; (2) participate in individual and parenting counseling; (3) have no involvement with the criminal justice system; (4) maintain adequate housing; and (5) visit with the child and demonstrate appropriate parent-child interaction during the visits.
On July 23, 2000, the period of commitment to the department lapsed. On November 2, 2000, the commissioner, realizing that she no longer had legal guardianship over the child, filed a neglect petition and sought an order of temporary custody. The petition alleged that the child was neglected and requested that she be committed to the department. The commissioner further alleged that the respondent had abused the child physically and failed to visit regularly while the child was in foster care. Finally, on the basis of the results of a psychological examination, the commissioner alleged that there was no parent-child attachment.
At the hearing on the order of temporary custody, the parties agreed to allow the child to remain in foster care under the custody of the department pending a full hearing on the neglect petition. In addition, the respondent also entered into a court approved agreement with the department to undertake the following specific steps to be granted custody: (1) keep appointments and cooperate with the department; (2) participate in individual and family counseling; (3) sign necessary releases; (4) maintain adequate housing; (5) have no further involvement with the criminal justice system and maintain compliance with the requirements of her probation; (6) visit with the child as permitted by the department; and (7) cooperate with the child's therapy.
On March 21, 2001, after a contested hearing, the court entered an adjudication of neglect and committed the child to the commissioner for placement in foster care until March 21, 2002. The term of the commitment was extended by the court, and on April 18, 2002, the commissioner filed a petition to terminate the respondent's parental rights. The petition alleged two grounds for termination, the respondent's failure to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation and no ongoing parent-child relationship. At the conclusion of a contested hearing, the court found that the commissioner had proven by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the department had made reasonable efforts to reunify the respondent and the child, (2) that the respondent had failed to achieve sufficient personal rehabilitation for purposes of § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B), (3) there was no ongoing parent-child relationship for purposes of § 17a-112 (j) (3) (D) and (4) it was in the child's best interest to terminate the respondent's parental rights. This appeal followed.
"Our standard of review on appeal from a termination of parental rights is whether the challenged findings are clearly erroneous. . . . The determinations reached by the trial court that the evidence is clear and convincing will be disturbed only if [any challenged] finding is not supported by the evidence and [is], in light of the evidence in the whole record, clearly erroneous. . . . On appeal, our function is to determine whether the trial court's conclusion was legally correct and factually supported. . . . We do not examine the record to determine whether the trier of fact could have reached a conclusion other than the one reached . . . nor do we retry the case or pass upon the credibility of the witnesses.. . . Rather, on review by this court every reasonable presumption is made in favor of the trial court's ruling. . . .
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Sheena I., 63 Conn. App. 713, 719-21, 778 A.2d 997 (2001).
The respondent claims that the court improperly found that the commissioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that the respondent had failed to achieve a sufficient degree of personal rehabilitation within the meaning of § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B).3
It is clear from the record that the child had been adjudicated neglected on two previous occasions. It is also clear from the record that the respondent had been provided with specific steps to facilitate the child's return to her custody. She does not argue that the requirements of the statute have been met. The respondent does argue, however, that there was no reason to believe that she could not assume a position of responsibility in the life of the child within a reasonable period of time. She contends that in determining whether a parent is restored to the position of being a caretaker does not mean taking full responsibility without some type of support services. The respondent claims that she engaged in services provided by therapists, that her visits with the child were consistent and that she participated in family counseling. Those actions on her part resulted in progress in the development of the necessary coping skills required to reunite her with her child. The respondent argues that in light of the progress she already had made, if given continued help, she could achieve the necessary degree of rehabilitation. Therefore, she argues that the court improperly found that she had failed to rehabilitate herself.
Although the respondent's contentions are noble, she fails to apprehend the requirements of § 17a-112 (j) (3) (B). We have stated that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Emerald C., (AC 28573) (Conn. App. 7/1/2008)
...health issues, and did not take advantage of specific steps and programs offered that would have addressed issues); In re Vanna A., 83 Conn. App. 17, 847 A.2d 1073 (2004) (court affirmed termination of mother's parental rights on ground of failure to rehabilitate because mother had been arr......
-
In re Halle T., No. 25675.
...findings regarding seven factors delineated in . . . § [17a-112 (k)]...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Vanna A., 83 Conn. App. 17, 21-22, 847 A.2d 1073 (2004). I The respondent first claims that the court violated his federal and state constitutional rights by adopting verbatim......
-
Hogan v. Dept. of Children and Families
...Allison G., 276 Conn. 146, 161, 883 A.2d 1226 (2005); In re David W., 254 Conn. 676, 682, 691, 759 A.2d 89 (2000); In re Vanna A., 83 Conn.App. 17, 19, 847 A.2d 1073 (2004); see also State v. Barnes, 33 Conn.App. 603, 610, 637 A.2d 398 (1994) ("the sentencing judge properly related the defe......
-
In re Emerald C.
...health issues, and did not take advantage of specific steps and programs offered that would have addressed issues); In re Vanna A., 83 Conn.App. 17, 847 A.2d 1073 (2004) (court affirmed termination of mother's parental rights on ground of failure to rehabilitate because mother had been arre......